Maybe coward is extreme if he has served in combat in the past....

However, how do we know how he acted there? Maybe he saw combat, was a chickenshit, and is simply afraid to go back....

My point is that it is impossible to let soldiers decide for themselves when and where they will and will not fight.

So the theory of just let him go back to another place would not be a very good message to send to other soldiers.

Can you tell your boss when and where you will work?

No one can.... be real on this....

He is a soldier... He swore to obey the orders of the officers above him...

He was ordered to Iraq.....

He refused to go....

He should and will be court martialed....

Viking

Coward? Hardly.

Not only has he served his duty in multiple actions, he knows full well the repercutions of his current actions.

A "coward" would have went running off to Canada.

He served his time, was honorably discharged, was just getting his civilian life in progress when the miltary boned him and acted upon his "reserve duty clause" of his contract.

it was a clause in a contract that "he signed".....

Is he a man of his word or not, does his hand shake meen anything or not?

In the military things are not the same as in the civilian world....

Ya cannot just disobey the boss and the worst ya get is being fired....

If you break this type of contract ya go to Ft. Levonworth....

Viking

That was my point...we don't have enough information to judge him a coward...if he is afraid or whatever why waste all the investment that they have put into him by sending him to prison at more expense when they could utilize his talents elsewhere? That's what most companies that have an investment in an employee does.

As to a message to other soldiers..."He was transferred"...end of discussion.

As to telling your boss where and when...you may not be able to do that but you can tell him to "take this job and shove it"...if so, you will have the opportunity to go look for another job...and perhaps some parting paperwork.

My point regarding the military is that they don't give you any alternative...that's fine and he agreed so screw him...BUT...don't complain when they have trouble in the future getting people to sign on the dotted line...they created an environment that does not treat people in a manner that most folks would want to subject themselves to.

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."

Which side will you be on?


OBAMA/PEROT

Pretty damn sad that you can put your life on the line serving your country for half a dozen years and then due to some "clause" go to prison.

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."

Which side will you be on?


OBAMA/PEROT

Feel free to point out where I contradict anything you stated above.

I specifically mentioned that the young man in question knew he was facing possible jailtime, yet stood up for his personal opinions and convictions.

I also stated that the reserve clause of that contract is complete and utter bullshit, yet another way for the g'ment to bone us. Feel free to point out where I suggested the young man could ignore that clause, merely because I think it is a bullshit boner.

Why do I get the feeling that if the young man had "found Christ" and stated that as his reason for not wanting to be redeployed, you'd be defending him tooth and nail?

Read the third paragraph of the preamble of Resolution 1441:

The Security Council recognized that Iraq's non-compliance posed a threat to international peace and security when it passed Resolution 1441.

It wasn't about the removal of Saddam, though - it was about using "all necessary means" to enforce Iraqi compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions - the same authority granted by Resolution 678. Another resolution, as desirable as it would have been, would have been superfluous.

The miscalculation was on Saddam's part - he didn't think Bush would actually go through with an invasion.

You didn't need one - from Canada's perspective, obtaining another Resolution was a crucial test of international will in standing up to Iraq. If you couldn't marshal that degree of international support and form another Gulf War coalition, then going in there unilaterally probably wasn't a good idea. But just because something isn't smart to do doesn't make it illegal.

Our actions did not bring international peace and security and 1441 called for further evaluation per 11 & 12...but you already know that.

Ahhh...ok...I guess we showed him.

Nor have I argued that it was illegal...merely that it was not made legal per the UN...too bad we blew it per the International community.

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."

Which side will you be on?


OBAMA/PEROT

Sure, lots of countries have them... but not too many of the countries who do have them had the same aggressive tendencies as Iraq. Look at Saddam's history - he consolidated his hold on power in 1979 and within a year he was invading Iran. Once that war ended, he took a little over a year off to lick his wounds and then he invaded Kuwait. Are you sensing a theme here?

How anxious do you figure the US would have been to militarily tangle with Saddam over Kuwait if they knew for a fact that he had nuclear weapons? I'll bet you the Gulf War wouldn't have happened and that Kuwait would still be an Iraqi province. Just look at the difference between the US handling of Iraq and it's handling of North Korea. You back off of North Korea because you're afraid of them. The most Bush would have done is to put in place a few ineffective sanctions.

Isn't that hindsight, though? Germany of 1936 wasn't the same post-Munich Germany - if FDR and Baldwin could somehow see the future and knew what Hitler was going to become, then I imagine they would have been a lot more confrontational, don't you?

Truman had no authority to let MacArthur loose on China, though - he had no Congressional authority and no UN mandate to do so. As far as confronting the Soviets over Cuba, well, that would have depended on your assessment of Khrushchev's aggressive tendencies. What if Khruschev perceived American reluctance to "duke it out" as weakness and decided to move into West Berlin, for example? Was West Berlin worth a nuclear war?

So you see yourself as closer to Baldwin than Churchill?

Wouldn't you need a pair of "future goggles" to be able to conclusively tell that in 2002, though?

Guess so. Bush, Sr., also miscalculated in thinking that Iraq wouldn't invade Kuwait in 1990.

Do you think there was anything the US could have done to get France and Russia on board for an invasion of Iraq? Or even to just stop them from exercising their Security Council vetoes?